Daniel I Glazer1, Servet Tatli2, Paul B Shyn1, Mark G Vangel3, Kemal Tuncali1, Stuart G Silverman1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Division of Abdominal Imaging and Intervention, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, Medical Imaging of Lehigh Valley, Allentown, PA. 3. 3 Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to report our intermediate to long-term outcomes with image-guided percutaneous hepatic tumor cryoablation and to evaluate its technical success, technique efficacy, local tumor progression, and adverse event rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1998 and 2014, 299 hepatic tumors (243 metastases and 56 primary tumors; mean diameter, 2.5 cm; median diameter, 2.2 cm; range, 0.3-7.8 cm) in 186 patients (95 women; mean age, 60.9 years; range, 29-88 years) underwent cryoablation during 236 procedures using CT (n = 126), MRI (n = 100), or PET/CT (n = 10) guidance. Technical success, technique efficacy at 3 months, local tumor progression (mean follow-up, 2.5 years; range, 2 months to 14.6 years), and adverse event rates were calculated. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 94.6% (279/295). The technique efficacy rate was 89.5% (231/258) and was greater for tumors smaller than 4 cm (93.4%; 213/228) than for larger tumors (60.0%; 18/30) (p < 0.0001). Local tumor progression occurred in 23.3% (60/258) of tumors and was significantly more common after the treatment of tumors 4 cm or larger (63.3%; 19/30) compared with smaller tumors (18.0%; 41/228) (p < 0.0001). Adverse events followed 33.8% (80/236) of procedures and were grade 3-5 in 10.6% (25/236) of cases. Grade 3 or greater adverse events more commonly followed the treatment of larger tumors (19.5%; 8/41) compared with smaller tumors (8.7%; 17/195) (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Image-guided percutaneous cryoablation of hepatic tumors is efficacious; however, tumors smaller than 4 cm are more likely to be treated successfully and without an adverse event.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to report our intermediate to long-term outcomes with image-guided percutaneous hepatic tumor cryoablation and to evaluate its technical success, technique efficacy, local tumor progression, and adverse event rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1998 and 2014, 299 hepatic tumors (243 metastases and 56 primary tumors; mean diameter, 2.5 cm; median diameter, 2.2 cm; range, 0.3-7.8 cm) in 186 patients (95 women; mean age, 60.9 years; range, 29-88 years) underwent cryoablation during 236 procedures using CT (n = 126), MRI (n = 100), or PET/CT (n = 10) guidance. Technical success, technique efficacy at 3 months, local tumor progression (mean follow-up, 2.5 years; range, 2 months to 14.6 years), and adverse event rates were calculated. RESULTS: The technical success rate was 94.6% (279/295). The technique efficacy rate was 89.5% (231/258) and was greater for tumors smaller than 4 cm (93.4%; 213/228) than for larger tumors (60.0%; 18/30) (p < 0.0001). Local tumor progression occurred in 23.3% (60/258) of tumors and was significantly more common after the treatment of tumors 4 cm or larger (63.3%; 19/30) compared with smaller tumors (18.0%; 41/228) (p < 0.0001). Adverse events followed 33.8% (80/236) of procedures and were grade 3-5 in 10.6% (25/236) of cases. Grade 3 or greater adverse events more commonly followed the treatment of larger tumors (19.5%; 8/41) compared with smaller tumors (8.7%; 17/195) (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Image-guided percutaneous cryoablation of hepatic tumors is efficacious; however, tumors smaller than 4 cm are more likely to be treated successfully and without an adverse event.
Authors: Michael Hwang; Thejus T Jayakrishnan; Danielle E Green; Ben George; James P Thomas; Ryan T Groeschl; Beth Erickson; Sam G Pappas; T Clark Gamblin; Kiran K Turaga Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Kyung Won Kim; Jeong Min Lee; Ernst Klotz; Soo Jin Kim; Se Hyung Kim; Ji Young Kim; Joon Koo Han; Byung Ihn Choi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Tito Livraghi; Luigi Solbiati; M Franca Meloni; G Scott Gazelle; Elkan F Halpern; S Nahum Goldberg Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Emily A Knott; Timothy J Ziemlewicz; Sam J Lubner; John F Swietlik; Sharon M Weber; Annie M Zlevor; Colin Longhurst; J Louis Hinshaw; Meghan G Lubner; Daniel L Mulkerin; Daniel E Abbott; Dustin Deming; Noelle K LoConte; Nataliya Uboha; Allison B Couillard; Shane A Wells; Paul F Laeseke; Marci L Alexander; Fred T Lee Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2021-08
Authors: Naoyuki Shono; Brian Ninni; Franklin King; Takahisa Kato; Junichi Tokuda; Takahiro Fujimoto; Kemal Tuncali; Nobuhiko Hata Journal: Med Phys Date: 2020-03-28 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Chakradhar Yakkala; Cheryl Lai-Lai Chiang; Lana Kandalaft; Alban Denys; Rafael Duran Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 7.561